Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Religious controversy section

I see the section is still there in exactly the same state as it was when comments were made regarding the nature of the sourcing, people still have issues with the section and simply allowing discussion to stall and allowing the section to stay in the state it is in is not imo acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above has suggestions for modifying the section. Please make all comments above to keep the discussion in one place. See latest suggestions.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The external links section

This section clearly has multiple issues and has been tagged as such since August, I have got some energy to help work through it and remove whatever is excessive or against policy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree this section has multiple issues. I've been going over the article and find many references that are dead links, cite articles that do not support the sentence they are linked to, etc.

Suggest making a list of other problems that editors can address. To date, there is no real mention of what Karl Rove is really known for, how he ran the campaigns for Bush, turning Texas into Republican territory, etc. Lots of interesting articles out there that would add to his bio here.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike lists, I prefer to work on something and move on. I am reading the WP:EL now to clue up about it, if there are broken or out of date links you can use the checklinks tool to work on those, let me know if you need a link to the tool. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay with the checklinks tool, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Strongly protest rapid pace of changes to Karl Rove article during U.S. holiday weekend

Here again I am moved to strongly protest the rapidity of changes here. We in the U.S. are in the midst of a major holiday weekend. Many of us here do not have the time to sort through the changes being made to this article by two users. Given recent troubles at this page, rapid changes - including splitting the article into a section that users have not watchlisted - is problematic, in my view. Jusdafax 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your bad faith and repeated bad faith comments that other ediors have previously been blocked are excessive and you should strike them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, also mentioned that he wanted to write a proposed change to the religion section. I thought we were all still waiting for that. P.S. I think there are some very plainly apparent factual problems with Malke 2010's suggested change. They probably though can be tweaked slightly to make them factually accurate though.Chhe (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that Off2riorob has reported me to WP:WQA, despite my telling him I would remove the comment he found offensive and then removing it prior to his report, I'd say the current atmosphere is a bit thick. His complaint was just closed as resolved, by the way, with no further action taken. Jusdafax 00:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually going to let it stay here Chhe and really I haven't had a chance to look through the edit. Soxwon (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chhe, what are the factual problems with the edit? Please list.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, please don't insert your comments above another editor's previous entry.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indent properly, I was responding in the appropriate fashion, your comment appeared to be just general inquiry. Soxwon (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, placing your edit above another editor's previous contribution is disruptive editing. Please don't do it again.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Use the Talk Page

Please do not revert any changes made unless you use the talk page. The admin has already said she will block anybody who is engaging in edit warring. If you don't make positive contributions to this page, then when you come along and simply revert, you are editing warring. Changes I have been making have been amply noted on the talk page. If you don't like something, please discuss it first.Malke2010 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again massive removal of content

Malke 2010 has again removed the following sentences that have been discussed at length previously. Here is the diff->[1]. After discussion about the matter at length that can be found in the archives at Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 8 at "Phony Citations #38 and #39 under heading, George W. Bush Administration", he was subsequently blocked over the matter because even after discussing it he was unable to convince enough other people of his opinion to remove it. He then removed it anyway numerous times and was blocked a while ago. I ask for an administrator to block him again since it doesn't seem like he is willing to let the matter go. P.S. I did use the talk page, I simply ran into an edit conflict just now with Malke 2010.Chhe (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to remove the negative uncivil comments about me. And use the talk page BEFORE you revert edits.Malke2010 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being uncivil, I was simply stating facts. If I come off as seeming that way please don't misinterpret. I'm not oppossed to rediscussing the matter with regards to this removal again, but from the last discussion on the matter you didn't convince any other people to remove it and it culminated in you having to be blocked in order to get you from continuing to remove it and other content. When I saw you removed it again I assumed you were back at it. If you genuinely want the matter discussed even more than it already has been then you should start an RFC as to whether it should be kept or removed.Chhe (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Karl Rove had terror alerts issued when supposedly John Kerry's approval ratings rose. Howard Dean claiming it is Karl Rove's MO is not the same as fact. None of the references cited provide any evidence that Karl Rove had anything to do with terror warnings. Therefore it is NPOV, unsubstantiated, and I appropriately removed it. If you believe evidence exists then perhaps you could find the references and post them. In any event, the section does not belong in the paragraph. It would more appropriate, if accurate, now belong to the Karl Rove in the Bush Administration page.Malke2010 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what part of Malke suggests a male?Malke2010 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rove Divorce

Good addition to the Personal Life section. I'd heard a rumor about this but I couldn't find it.Malke2010 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rove's family life

I mentioned this earlier, but I've not had time to finish the references, etc, but I've found some very interesting quotes from Rove about his family life and his parents and I'll be adding that. Also, I'm going to change some of the headings to accommodate the additional text. The college years should be separated out from the family thing since I'm going to add information about his financial situation, etc., and with the Dixon college incident in there and the College Republicans, they should all be together so the text flows more smoothly. I also discovered Rove has had a provisional acceptance to the Ph.D. government program at Un of Texas (at Austin, I believe) and that is what that quote referring to what requirements for graduation he has left to do is all about.Malke2010 21:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove proves gay marriage destroys traditional marriage.

Just one week after gay marriage becomes legal in Washington DC, Karl Rove and his wife file for divorce. Although we are not sure what caused his first marriage to fail, it is likely related to something the gays did or were planning to do as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.147.143 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it was my fault. Anyway, I came on the talk page to mention that it may be worth mentioning in the article the controversy of his divorce. Karl Rove advocated fiercely alongside Bush 43 for the anti-marriage amendment, now today, all the same-sex marriages and unions in the world are more traditional and sanctified than his. Google "Karl Rove" + "same sex marriage" and all the references are there. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about the article and not using the talk page as a forum I'd just caution that we don't drift into synthesis along with other aplicable policies.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The idea that Rove is a hypocrite is a controversy regardless of your political party affiliation, religion, or views on same-sex marriage. That controversy is not biased and sources are not being combined to imply anything other than a neutral point of view. The controversy is what it is. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't prove he's a hypocrite. I bet he would be totally in favor of gays divorcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Something can be "true" and still be synthesis or some other variation of original research. That's why I suggest caution. It's easy to dispose of original research when it's some off the wall viewpoint. It's when we agree with the sentiment that we really need to ask ourselves, am I within the guidelines, or am I treading on that line.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can respect that. But, I would venture to say that this is what talk pages are for.

In general, to apply unworkable, strict guidelines for the inclusion of controversial related subtopics would do a grave injustice to the need to paint the most accurate and inclusive picture of the topic on which is being written.

I have no idea what your view is on same sex marriage, I really don't care, but I would not call it irrelevant. The hesitation of some editors here to allow the inclusion of information unflattering to the conservative anti-marriage movement is not something new. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But this article isn't about the conservative anti-marriage movement.Malke2010 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with the discussion taking place. My comment about the use of the talk page was directed more at the IP that started the heading. I think that original post was far less constructive then the conversation that followed.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Divorce is becoming traditional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the evidence. First, Bush and Rove did not 'advocate fiercely' for the no gay marriage amendment in 2000, and this is why the Republican base did not come out and vote for Bush in 2000, and why Al Gore won, but that's for another page. Amending the U.S. constitution is a Herculean task and to do it for something as ridiculous as to block gay marriage would make everybody look like loons and Rove knew that on day one. Second, there is no Karl Rove divorce controversy. A guy getting divorced is a personal, painful thing, and there is no connection between Rove getting divorced and gay marriage except in somebody's mind. Karl Rove has not come out and said, "The wife and I are calling it off because of gay marriage." Third, if you ask me, based on all the research I've done on Rove's family life, he was very close to his father, and had no problem when his father left the family and announced he was gay. Rove deeply loved Louis Rove. Rove has consistently said he had a great father. He will tell that to anybody who asks. When it comes to his Dad, he's right there speaking well of him. At the end of the day, I believe, in 10 years time, Karl Rove is going to come out of the big Republican walk-in closet. Seriously, he will. Just like his Dad. But to whip up some synthesis, and I believe Cube Luker is absolutely spot on about that, that somehow Rove getting a divorce is linked to gay marriage sounds as ridiculous to me as an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. constitution.Malke2010 19:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is litte doubt that Karl Rove is gay. He is just the last one to admit it. His closet has a glass door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.182.221 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When I first read the IP's comments, I assumed he was being satirical. I'm not sure everyone picked up on that interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I wondered if, since it was an IP if it was a troll/vandalism.Malke2010 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Have to play semantics here. Satire is an art. I think I'd label it ordinary sarcasm. (Wait, am I using the page as a forum? I think I need to go template myself.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Satire is the artful use of sarcasm. Check out this diff, XD [2].Malke2010 21:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Moyers Paragraph

Why is so much space being wasted on what Moyers thinks? He's a commentator, a pundent. No more, just like John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh. Why not quote them as well? Richrakh````

It should be deleted but there are issues. See threads on issue.Malke2010 07:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Project: Courage and Consequence

After adding some more information to Courage and Consequence, I decided it would only make sense to link to it from Karl's page. It meets all notability requirements and I believe I met the neutral POV we all like here.

As an aside, WOW are these political pages contentious! I usually stick to rock and roll. Top pocket man (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo Wales is interested in selling downloads for a rock band. But feel free to leave this on his talk page and ask him. This is a WP:BLP. Going to revert you on this one.Malke2010 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The article on Karl Rove regarding his entrance to college states:

"In the fall of 1969, Rove entered the University of Utah, on a $1,000 scholarship,[9] as a political science major and joined the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity. As with many others of his generation, enrollment in college protected him from being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War".

This statement is misleading. College deferments had been issued throughout the '60's but had become so controversial that it was widely known at the time Rove entered college that deterrents would be eliminated with a lottery system in very short order.

All males between the ages of 18 and I believe 26 were included in the first lottery that occurred on December 1, 1969, just a few months after Rove entered college. In each year there after, a new lottery was held for all males who turned 18 during that year. From that point forward, males were drafted based on their lottery number regardless of whether or not they were in college, so college was no longer a vehicle to prevent one from getting drafted into the military.

I graduated from high school in 1965, and was included in the first draft lottery held on 12-1-69. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retiredfed (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvements to article

Please offer suggestions for adding content to the article. As it stands now, it is very short on Karl Rove and still long on negativity. For example, mention is made of the sale of Karl Rove's company but there is nothing in the article about the company, Rove's direct mail effort, etc. The article doesn't really offer insight to the subject of the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

sources to be updated. Under the personal section, the reference to Rove's mother's suicide comes up, "page not found." I did find a reference that will go there unless someone would prefer the original source and can find it. They all pretty much say the same thing.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a great source with direct quotes from Rove about his family and his mother. Very interesting. Also his father worked for Getty Oil as a geologist, so that's worth adding in.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence in the family section is confusing. Rove and his brother are from his mother's first marriage and it should say that. Then it should mention his mother remarried and Louis Rove adopted Karl and Eric. Karl was only 2 years old at the time which is why he grew up believing that Louis Rove was his natural father. I found several sources with direct quotes from Rove where he speaks well of his father and says, "I had a great father." Even after Louis and Reba divorced, Louis Rove continued to support the children, although as it turns out, Reba didn't pass on the money to Karl in college. And I also found out that it was the lack of money that contributed to Rove not being able to finish his college degree. If anybody can find more information about Rove's early life, it would be nice to add it to the section.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've come up with a revision for the personal section that will cover all the information and update it with accurate references and direct quotes from Karl Rove. I think the phrase, "entry into politics" seems silly given what is actually being referred to in the section and should be removed.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Fictional Portrayals remain? Seems trivial and has no citations. Bobwikwiki (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. It probably should be removed since it would not be tolerated on other biographies such as Barack Obama. You don't see the Joker poster of Obama with the "Socialism" banner beneath it that was in the news several months ago, on his biography. The person who added the fictional portrayals and cartoon picture it probably did not have the best intentions for this article at heart. If we're voting, I vote to remove it. It's irrelevant. And also the article will never be considered for the "Good Article" category with it in place. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with everything Malke stated (there's no "voting" in wikipedia), I agree with the premise, the fictional mentions section really seems to be trivia. Soxwon (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. . .Really? no voting, then please tell us all what this is Soxwon:

" So, on these interpretations the grand total is:

• IN FAVOR of 'To date, no charges..' are Jusdafax, Chhe and Ipromise. (3 people)
• OPPOSED to 'To date, no charges..' are Off2riorob, Lindisfarnelibrary, Soxwon, EdJohnston and Crotalus. (5 people)"

Looks remarkably like a vote to me. . .Malke 2010 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The section on Voting Registration and Residences seems incoherent. It has personal info on his marriages which should be in a section marked Personal Life. The rest of it should be deleted as it is not relevant to anything. I don't imagine anyone coming to wikipedia specifically to find out whether or not Rove legally took a homestead deduction on his house. It's obvious the writer of this section was just looking to layer on more "scandal," but there is none there.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Texas Years and Notable Political Campaigns is a silly title. I think that getting a candidate elected twice to the U.S. presidency is more than notable and should not be lumped in like that. Also, the sectioning of the campaigns is silly. The sections have no references, they offer no insights into Rove's strategies, techniques, goals, etc. Especially the Ronald Reagan campaign where Rove handled direct mail. The whole section seems only to exist as a means to highlight at some future point, supposed dirty tricks and scandals, which as I read the references on the ones that do have claims, and actually go to the supposed sources, I discover the sources do not support the claims and in fact, in several instances, show the opposite.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the fictional portrayals and added a Personal Life section. I took out the nonsensical voting registration and residences as it had no relevance and was undue weight. I edited it down and put it in the Personal Life section.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to edit down all the Texas campaigns and remove all the separate sections. There are no references, there is nothing noteworthy, and it can all be taken care of in a few paragraphs. The relevant campaigns like Bush's governor's races and the presidential campaigns need to be expanded. Also, there is nothing about Rove changing Texas from Democrat to Republican so I'll be adding that, too.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been studying how to make this article a 'good article.' Anybody else want to help with this here are the criteria: [[3]] Malke 2010 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

After "good article" comes, "featured article." [[4]]. Obviously, we've got a long way to go.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rove's comments to Wallace including the language "I’m a Christian. I go to church. I’m an Episcopalian." Those need to be included. What is quoted now could be viewed as an evasion. The material I quoted make it clear there was no evasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that Rove's step-father was gay. Rove has consistently denied this. (In addition, does speculation from the Huffington Post count a legitimate news source?) Also, the phrase "the man Rove had known as his father" should probably read something like "Rove's stepfather." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.180.67 (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rove is portrayed as the evil Emporer Palpatine from star wars in the American Dad episode Deacon Stan, Jesus Man. I'd say this is probably worth mentioning... 81.140.28.233 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Episcopalian?

It's pretty well known that Karl Rove is an atheist. Shouldn't it say this instead? Here are a few sources you can look at if you want:

[5]

Wikipediarules2221 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There was already paragraphs in the article about Rove's religious views and the consensus at the time seemed to be to detail the accusations out there and to list Rove's responses and anything he since said about his religious views. But another editor removed these sections despite having been blocked several times because of it. I haven't had the patience yet to add it back. You would have to read the past threads if you wanted to know more about it. As to Rove's religious views its not quite clear. There had been several claims out there from several people saying that he was an agnostic Hitchens, Moyer, etc. But, Rove has on one occasion that I know of came on tv and attempted to very quitely say he was a christian. What the truth is I don't know.Chhe (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the story that Rove is agnostic originated in Moore and Slater's book "The Architect". [6] This was published in September, 2006, long before the Moyer show, but so far as I can recall, Rove never denied it until Moyer. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay Torture

Should there be some coverage of his recent comments, endorsing the water torture treatment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardya (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please note that it is included in the article about Dick Cheney and so should be included here as well if it is referenced. Richrakh````March 18, 2010

Why Rove Resigned

This article omits reference to Bush's second term, which was a disaster: Rove had given up domestic policy in 2006 in order to concentrate on the elections. He had predicted that the Iraq War would be a bonus for the Republicans; actually, it contributed to the President's plunging approval numbers. He had predicted that Republicans would retain both houses of Congress, actually they lost both. Major initiatives on Social Security, taxation and immigration failed. There were huge deficits. The economy stalled. Rove came under suspicion in the Abramoff scandal, Valery Plame scandal and the firing of U.S. attorneys. Rove's combative and divisive style of politics had fallen from favor. NYT: "Yet it was nonetheless widely believed inside and outside the White House that he would walk out the door behind Mr. Bush at the end of the president’s term in January 2009, and help him solidify his legacy before his exit." [7] According to "Machiavelli's Shadow" by Paul Anderson: "Bush went to church with Rove at his Episcopal church. During the service, Bush said to the man often considered his political alter ego, 'Karl, there's too much heat on you. It's time for you to go.'" (Supposedly, Bush fired him in church because he was afraid Rove would otherwise become emotional and make a scene.) [8] [9] Other references: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] --Forrest Johnson (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What Did Rove do About the Draft and Vietnam?

For a fellow Rove's age, there were two gigantic issues in his youth -- the draft and Vietnam. How did a college dropout avoid military service? Perhaps he had some medical reason, or perhaps he avoided via a lottery number, but Rove was clearly interested in public service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a neutral lede?

I find the phrase "Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy." to be a concern from a neutrality point of view. The phrase "Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals" strikes me as a rather poor description. Can we remove this, or re-word it? Stovl (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violation Removed

Bill Moyer's personal attack on Karl Rove's religious beliefs has been removed from the Bill Moyer's page for BLP violation. I have removed it from Rove's BLP. Please do not add this back.Malke2010 22:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in Archive 7 after you removed it previously (Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 7#Rewriting this article for neutrality & accuracy & a few other places). It was then discussed and then a majority wasn't established for removing it. Most people seemed to be against its removal. You were then blocked for continuing to remove it despite being told you needed consensus first. Now after its died down a bit you removed it again without even having first started a discussion. I just wanted to say that I don't think this is appropriate. You knew perfectly well this was going to be a very controversial thing. I'm willing to discuss it again, but I just wanted to warn you that many people will view this as edit warring again on your part.Chhe (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just had a look at the Bill Moyer's talk page at Talk:Bill_Moyers#On Karl Rove and not surprisingly the section you seem to be referring to doesn't have anything to do with what your saying. From a cursory read it seems to be discussing whether or not the section "Ad Hominem Attacks on Karl Rove" should be added to the Bill Moyer's article. You advocating its inclusion and the others against it. I don't know what this has to do with these paragraphs.Chhe (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The section was removed from the article. It is the same section that I wrote and placed in the Bill Moyers article. It was removed by another editor yesterday. You, as usual, don't pay any attention. You just revert.Malke2010 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring by Chhe

This edit [15] was written by me after lengthy attempts by me to reach consensus, which btw, Chhe did not participate in. It was also on the Bill Moyer's article but has recently been viewed as a BLP violation and deleted. I have deleted it from this page as well, but once again, Chhe is inciting an edit war, without discussion on the talk page, simply making another revert. I will take this to the BLP/N board.Malke2010 23:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this as non notable and also deleted the 2000 smear campaign stuff. Here is the the previous discussion and the one below it. --Tom (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very good. I hope that will be the last of Chhe's edit warring. The whole bit was more of slam against Moyers which I had not even considered until it got removed from his article yesterday. I'm embarrassed that I wrote the damn bit.Malke2010 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The "material" has been readded by Chhe with the edit summary about no discussion about its removal and no consensus for its removal. There should be consensus for its inclusion, not the other way around it seems. If 5 folks say keep and 5 say delete, it shouldn't be in. If 10 say keep and 5 say nuke, then it should stay (give or take a few :) ) Anyways, hopefully others will comment? I thought Rove would get more eyes, but I guess he is yesterday's news :)..cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be removed. It is a WP:BLP violation. It's already been removed from Bill Moyers' page.Malke2010 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom, from my head count there is a lot more than 50% of the people who have commented so far that want it included. The exclusion people are in the minority. Additionally a compromise inclusion of it had already been reached by Malke 2010 and these other contributors who wanted it included, which was why I thought its removal by Malke a few months later is not equitable or honest. You have to go into the archives though to read their comments though since this is a rehash of a very old issue. The thread where the compromise was made can be read here--->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 9#Religion Redux. The compromised addition ended up being a paragraph that Malke 2010 agreed to include. It was then included and the matter was dropped for some time. Then for some reason Malke came back and just removed this compromised upon paragraph. Thats why I think it should be left in until consensus can be reached for removing it.Chhe (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph. It turns out it is a violation of WP:BLP and has been removed also from the Bill Moyers page. You are not correct in stating that 'for some reason Malke came back and just removed this. . ." I made it very clear in the edit summary why the edit was now being removed. Please read WP:BLP.Malke2010 16:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Chhe, please remove the personal attack where you characterize me as not being honest. Thanks.Malke2010 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Haven't heard back from Tom yet so I'm starting an RFC below.Chhe (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl Rove Religion Again

There has been extensive debate at the Karl Rove talk page extending back many months involving the inclusion of a section discussing Rove's religious affiliation. There have been several people, Bill Moyers, Christopher Hitchens, etc. claiming in articles that they wrote that Rove wasn't religious and that he had confided at times with other colleagues with regards to this. That section talked about these accusations and Rove's subsequent response to these in detail (Rove eventually went on tv after Moyers claimed it on his show, saying that Moyers was wrong and that he was really a Christian). Anyway a user Malke 2010 came and deleted it and argued at the time that any mention of sacrilege was an insult to Rove and should be removed for that reason. This discussion can be found here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 7#Rewriting this article for neutrality & accuracy. It was subsequently voted on here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 7#Should Hitchens quote be Removed? the vote then stalled. It was then rediscussed here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 9#reliable citations. At the time it seemed most people wanted it included. Then a compromise was reached here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 9#Religion Redux with Malke 2010 writing the compromised upon paragraph. At the time, the informal compromise was to remove the religion section and the part about Hitchens, but to still talk about the controversy that emerged after Moyers accusations. Malke 2010 added in the paragraph in the personal section of the article. The matter was then dropped until a few days ago when Malke 2010 removed this compromise paragraph. It should be mentioned that Malke was blocked several times a few months ago prior to the compromise being reached due to removing these sections despite consensus. I'm not sure what the most appropriate thing to do is so I'm starting an RFC to get others opinions as to the most appropriate way to deal with this situation.Chhe (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the next step is some sort of administrative review (which I've never attempted before). I've been going through a very similar process on the Sarah Palin page. In fact Malke2010 is one of the very same users who deleted my entry as well. I had my suspicions before- and now, after reading your RFC, it seems quite apparent he engages in politically motivated disruptive editing practices.LMRusso (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

From RfC. I'm inclined to believe that it is possible to mention it, though the compromise paragraph seems to quote unnecessarily, giving it a little bit of undue weight. I couldn't really see a good reason for any of the quotes, as simply laying out the claim and the response with the ombudsman's agreement should be plenty. My personal opinion is that the folowing would be fine:

On August 16, 2007, in response to Rove’s resignation announcement, PBS journalist Bill Moyers claimed Rove had confided to friends that he was an agnostic. Rove complained to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler, who found no basis in fact for Moyer's claim, noting Moyers had sourced his assertion on a blogger's comments at the San Antonio Express.

I don't agree there's a BLP violation, though you could post over at the BLP Noticeboard as well if there are still allegations of BLP issues. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about BLP, but I would ask why is this "material" so noteable for this article? Is Moyers some Rove expert? Why do we care about Moyer's opinion? Has this "material" been widely covered by 3rd parties? I would rather include this "material" in the Moyers article, and even that seems like a stretch. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been removed from the Bill Moyers page for WP:BLP. I removed it from here for the same reason. If anything, it's more relevant on Moyers' page since it's his opinion.Malke2010 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you explained why this should be considered a BLP issue, as I, and apparently others, are not intuitively grasping the logic behind this. Citing WP:BLP is not a method to instant-win a dispute. How does it apply? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP. If you read through this page you'll see all the points mentioned that will apply here. In addition, it's WP:UNDUE. What does Bill Moyers' comments attacking Karl Rove's religious beliefs have to do with Karl Rove leaving his White House job? But I do like your edit above. We sure could have used you during the consensus gathering for the edit. This edit might be a good edition on the Bill Moyers' page, but I'd ask on the talk pge first. Malke2010 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

After rethinking things and looking again at what Tom had to say above, I'm inclined to change my position. Given that the dispute had very low coverage in the press, it could be considered placing undue weight on the incident or possibly is just in the wrong article. It's possible, though I haven't fully checked it out, that the above suggestion could be added to the section in the Bill Moyers article on Karl Rove, since it was more about Moyers' opinions than it was about Rove.

Malke 2010, I'm not sure you quite understand what WP:BLP is about. It's not a catchall policy when working on a living person's biography. It's intended to add extra weight to removing problem additions until any issues can be resolved on the talk page. Looking at Bill Moyers, the BLP problem had more to do with placing undue weight on the conflict and non-neutral wording that did not reflect what the sources said. BLP is more about adding urgency to removing potentially wrong information from an article, not ending the discussion about what may potentially be included. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Excerpt from WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

Moyers' personal attack on Rove's religious beliefs seems very much a 'titillating claim' and 'sensationalist', and lacks reliable sources. Moyers' attack was not reported by the mainstream media probably because they recognized it for what it was. Since there is no validation of Moyers' claim, (and how could there be? How does Rove 'prove' he's not an atheist?) by reliable sources, it violates BLP and has been removed.Malke2010 13:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Moyers' claim can be validated is not necessarily the issue. Controversy/conflict involving notable people is often included if there's sufficient sourcing/notability for the conflict itself. If there were sufficient press coverage, the issue would not be whether it was true or not, only that Moyers made the claim. However, if coverage was very low, then it probably creates an undue weight situation on Moyers' article, and would require much heavier coverage before being considered appropriate for Rove's. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources to validate what Moyers' claims, then absolutely that is the issue. It's nothing more than a personal attack, and according to policy it should be removed, and it has been. Malke2010 03:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is mostly settled anyway, but I'll make this last reply. I still believe you're missing the point. The piece of information under debate in the articles is not, "Karl Rove is an agnostic." That would very rightly be unverifiable. The information is, "Bill Moyers has claimed Karl Rove is an agnostic, though an independent ombudsman has found no basis for the claim." That piece of information is verifiable, though the issue became one of undue weight and proper context. For an interesting read on WP's approach to controversy, see WP:TIGER, but also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy" and Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. If we scrubbed all of the unverifiable, much less obviously untrue, things one person said about another from WP, we probably wouldn't have anything left from certain pundits. If you still feel like discussing this, we should take it to one of our user talk pages. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If the original source is "a blogger's comments at the San Antonio Express" then I don't think it is reasonable to include it. If the original source is "a friend of a friend who confided in a friend" then again, it shouldn't be included. I can't believe this had to actually go to a RFC. This should be obvious to anyone, on either side of the aisle. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely. I think the RfC should be closed.Malke2010 14:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What's worse, is that people are arguing about Rove's personal beliefs. To even discuss something like that in a biography article, you have to have really good sources to start. Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

His Father

I found some interesting facts about Karl Rove's father. Wonder how much of it is worth adding to the article? [16] [17] [18] Stonemason89 (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference [16] is probably ok, but it would likely be best if you used the book as your reference.Chhe (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Activities" section

I tagged this section. A summary of what he does for a living would be appropriate but not where he goes on speaking tours, etc., especially as he's made about a hundred other speaking engagements, and continues to do so. Can't post them all. Not appropriate for a BLP.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Atheist"

I've reverted the following insertion:

According to multiple media reports, Rove is an atheist.

First of all, all three of these "sources" are really the same source -- they're all citing the first, Christopher Hitchens in New York Magazine. So we could perhaps say "Hitchens claims Rove is an atheist", but that wouldn't even be correct; at most, given the language of the interview, we can say "Hitchens claims Rove is not a believer", a far weaker claim. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about his memoir?

I don't see it mentioned in here at all. The memoir that he made, Courage and Consequences. J390 (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, it is mentioned, but not enough detail is given into it, the statements made in the book. J390 (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Karl Rove's 1972 interview with CBS News

Under the heading College Republicans, Watergate, and the Bushes, line, A CBS report on the organization of the Nixon campaign from June 1972 includes an interview with a young Rove working for the College Republican National Committee.

Line listed as "Citation Needed." Found original CBS report on youtube, timestamped where Karl Rove appears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HPnW4EBed4&t=4m8s

After discussion with the above IP in #wikipedia-en-help, I suggested the IP post the link here for review instead of inserting it into the article directly, since we don't generally approve of youtube links. However, this appears to be the legitimate primary source for the claim, so I think it can be cited. Keegan (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete article

Just read this PBS transcript and it seems the article lacks many aspects of Rove's ascendance. Kahlores (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. If you let me know some particular highlights that warrant inclusion, I'll attempt to integrate them into the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading this article it is impossible to discern why he is an ultra political conservative. I think the article needs some evidence from his memoirs or something to give readers knowledge of his cause for partisanship. Karl is a heavyweight advisor, i am sure some of his most influential 'advice' warrants enclosure. This guy has been one of the architect of modern conservatism for good or worse, so such scrutiny is definitely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.69.131.133 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Explaining why Mr Rove is an 'ultra conservative' would inevitably lead to an analysis of the entire psychological phenomenon of the 'closeted conservative' which the RNC has in profusion, but googling for the image of his father's perculiar piercing proclivities which were featured on the front cover of a fetish magazine might help to explain a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.42.7 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

University/Alma Mater

According to Karl Rove in numerous interviews he does not have a degree from any of the Universities at which he attended. The words "Alma Mater" should be removed from his bio as they are used for a person who graduated from school. The words should be replaced with something suitable such as "Attended" or "Studied at". Tiberiusuhl (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us to a Wikipedia policy or guideline supporting your opinion expressed above? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Tiberiusuhl, I believe that the user Fat & Happy is engaging in willful subterfuge by trying to falsely imply that merely attending an institution for a brief time or limited number of courses imbues unearned authority to an individual - Attended is much more accurate than Alma Matter (common usage implies graduation with degree, not merely attending, or auditing a class or two)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triakis (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<Triakis (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)>

Alma mater can be legitimately used for merely studying/attending at an institution of higher learning not just graduating although graduating from the university is usually expected before someone calls it their alma mater. C6541 (T↔C) 16:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Alma Mater, "nourishing mother", is a term used for the university one attends or has attended. Another university term, matriculation, is also derived from mater. The term suggests that the students are "fed" knowledge and taken care of by the university. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)